If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

... aaaaand this gets back into the question of "what do you mean by better" ? Improved static PM (which is more of a challenge for APUs), or just keep pushing on advanced DPM and hope we can release that ?

Right now we're focusing on advanced DPM as a priority but that just means it makes progress, doesn't guarantee it will happen or make it happen "real fast".

Comment

Money is not an instrument to provide innovation and commonwealth of the society. Money is any object or record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a given socio-economic context or country. The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, occasionally in the past, a standard of deferred payment.[From Wikipedia]

(1)A company's purpose is to maximize the shareholders' wealth. Right now AMD already has a driver called fglrx. Probably it's core is shared between linux and windows and only provides a wrapper for some generic functions that are implemented differently on windows and linux. For some people (maybe a lot I don't know I'm not one of them) the fglrx has problems. So AMD should focus on solving those problems. Not rewriting from scratch and open source driver. I understand that an open source driver would be better from Stallman's view but remember (1). Reimplementing that driver in open source is probably a gargantuan task. You may say that why don't they open source their current fglrx driver. Maybe because they have a lot of code that isn't theirs and can't open source it.

New drivers for new devices should start as open source but right now some drivers are proprietary and we should accept that. They won't become open source. So, in order to attract a larger userbase, we must present compelling arguments for them to move to linux. One compelling argument is that you can have the same graphics performance on both windows and linux. The argument that open source is better but still 50-80% (you're very optimistic this is not what I see in practice) of the performance turns a lot of people off. In fact even though everybody agrees that open source is better in theory, right now they will have the fglrx driver thank you very much. So AMD should focus on providing value to the customer. And most customers don't care if it's open source or not, but care if it's fast or not. And for them it's easier (I think) to fix the fglrx than to rewrite it.

However, once Siri was purchased by Apple, Apple restricted its usage only to own platform. This is damaging illegal method of "exclusivity".

What about Apple's freedom to do what they want with their products? Who made you god to say on which platforms should Siri be available. Ever thought that they did it only for Apple because of limited resources allocated for that project? Why should they have made it available for other platforms if it didn't guarantee revenue? Remember (1). Always remember (1). And no I don't like Apple and never liked Steve Jobs, never owned something from Apple.

In this case, opensourcing the driver will produce vast platform advantage and compatibility of AMD solutions to all current and future systems.

Agreed. But only if open source programmers take it and improve it. There is no guarantee that people will work on it. Not everybody is a graphics driver programmer you know. AMD should make something of a survey to find out how many people are actually willing to work on their driver.

Where did you ask? In a pool of clueless people? To provide educated opinion, one should know BOTH ways equally good.
You asked sheep. Recieved "Meee". Now you claim "Meee" to be the ultimate answer. Meee don't think so.

Yes clueless people. The kind of clueless people that use windows and don't care about linux but the linux community wants them to take on linux. That kind of people. The potential customers if you wish. They aren't sheep. Do you think Microsoft calls its customers sheep because they can't do kernel programming? And they don't care about open source. They first and foremost care if they can do in linux what they can do in windows equally easier or even easier. And right now, since they don't have the same performance with the radeon driver they will go with the proprietary ones. They may be sheep from your point of view, but I call them normal people for going with the performance. Again, after explaining open source they agree that it's a better development model, but they still choose performance and functionality first. That is why AMD should focus on making sure that fglrx works. And the X.org guys can help the AMD guys by not changing the interface so much so that people could use the end of life driver version indefinitely(talking about the 2000 3000 and 4000 lines that no longer work with the latest X.org).

I feel that the linux community says that they want better market share but aren't actually willing to do what is necessary to get that market share. And when they don't get it they call everybody sheep and narrow minded for not bending to their way of doing things. If the purpose is to get as much market share as possible we should focus on what people want. Not on what Stallman wants.

You said alot here, and I don't want to address all of it. Instead I'll just state my opinion as an opposite.

If AMD wants to waste their time developing it that is perfectly fine, they can choose to do so. The problem with it is that it is unstable. It crashes on just abou every computer it runs on. Release cycles are not coordinated with new x server and kernel releases. Commonly used hardware is only supported by old drivers that only work on old x servers. Shaders are not rendered properly. There is no possibility of kernel mode setting. It uses its own graphics stack so it doesnt contribute to the linux ecosystem..... And the list of problems goes on. I'm not saying that a proprietary driver can't be good because it can. But I am saying that fglrx is -not-...

At least the OSS drivers have none of these problems. It may be incomplete, but at least it works on far more hardware than current fglrx and is stable with zero configuration requirements.

Comment

@BO$$
You want Linux as other windows, but you want it to be same windows. Like your effort to duplicate already existing proprietary driver, it possess no uniqueness and will fail.
Performance/features of software are based only upon amount of human/hours(effort) devoted to it, like I claimed it has nothing to do with wither its opensource or closed source.
Given equilibrium in effort, opensource driver is many times more advanced to a proprietary driver, in value, adaptability and development efficiency. And you are not bound to ugly windows 8 squares.

Ok, but we don't have that equilibrium above because the company in question distributes the effort differently, so you think its because opensource is inefficient. Thats not the case.
The truth is that you can't drive maglevs on steam trains' railway. It won't work.

And they also have this microsoft agreement, which means they would implement everything microsoft wants them to, than what customers want them to.
So if customers run off microsoft (what they usually do), its their primary job to offer sub-class broken maglev in order to bullcrap them back. Because old railway is everywhere and microsoft holds its monopoly.
Also they would rather replace the railway with that of microsoft, preferably patented and preferably again microsoft-only. If you don't believe me, check MS JPEG replacement format - JPEG XR. A "standard" that is windows-only and distributed under "open agreement" that prohibits copyleft.

So, lets replace electromagnetic drive with that from the steam loc and call it a day!

Picture gallery:

FGLRX:

AMD (Bridgeman's) viewpoint:

Opensource as it should be:

Opensource by AMD:

PS.
Why comparing opensource to maglev and proprietary to steam train?
Easy, magnetic rail has no proprietary rut, its free floating. And its roll friction is nearly zero, because there is no license fees.

Comment

Money is not an instrument to provide innovation and commonwealth of the society. Money is any object or record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a given socio-economic context or country. The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, occasionally in the past, a standard of deferred payment.

And how are the two arguments there really that distinct? Do you actually understand the quote you posted, or are you just doing the tried and true and yet still patently ridiculous "dictionary" argument?

A company's purpose is to maximize the shareholders' wealth. Right now AMD already has a driver called fglrx. Probably it's core is shared between linux and windows and only provides a wrapper for some generic functions that are implemented differently on windows and linux. For some people (maybe a lot I don't know I'm not one of them) the fglrx has problems. So AMD should focus on solving those problems. Not rewriting from scratch and open source driver. I understand that an open source driver would be better from Stallman's view but remember (1). Reimplementing that driver in open source is probably a gargantuan task. You may say that why don't they open source their current fglrx driver. Maybe because they have a lot of code that isn't theirs and can't open source it.

Again, you are under the belief that the two projects are taking resource from each other. Seriously, the cost of free drivers to AMD is about four guys and the occasional cost of a legal review. I think even our tiny fractured market share has more than made up for that input (something that is also indicated by the fact that they were forced to lay off some of the CPU driver teams, and yet the graphics team was untouched). Meanwhile Catalyst taps into the workloads of thousands - you can not really claim the problem is a lack of resources. Granted, I agree with you that Catalyst does not have as many problems as some claim, but the R600g drivers better suit my use case and yes, I do prefer having a free driver over proprietary. Does that really make me that dogmatic? That I prefer one over the other?

New drivers for new devices should start as open source but right now some drivers are proprietary and we should accept that. They won't become open source. So, in order to attract a larger userbase, we must present compelling arguments for them to move to linux. One compelling argument is that you can have the same graphics performance on both windows and linux. The argument that open source is better but still 50-80% (you're very optimistic this is not what I see in practice) of the performance turns a lot of people off. In fact even though everybody agrees that open source is better in theory, right now they will have the fglrx driver thank you very much. So AMD should focus on providing value to the customer. And most customers don't care if it's open source or not, but care if it's fast or not. And for them it's easier (I think) to fix the fglrx than to rewrite it.

Yes, they have the Catalyst drivers if they want that for now. So why do you have this huge bee in your bonnet about the very existence of the free drivers? Why the hell do you have this view that people who prefer the free drivers have committed against you personally? As I said, it is not really taking resources away from Catalyst (and Catalyst is not really taking resources from the free drivers) so I really do not get why you are making this argument. It is like saying that I prefer this brand of cereal, but some others prefer this one by the same company, so that other one must be hurting my favourite cereal. And that the existence of that cereal is somehow preventing me from getting more house guests....

What about Apple's freedom to do what they want with their products? Who made you god to say on which platforms should Siri be available. Ever thought that they did it only for Apple because of limited resources allocated for that project? Why should they have made it available for other platforms if it didn't guarantee revenue?

And who exactly stopped Apple from doing that? Okay, people criticized them for it. Big deal. Their "freedom" was never infringed, people just complained, as was their right. Tell me why that should also be a problem?

In this case, opensourcing the driver will produce vast platform advantage and compatibility of AMD solutions to all current and future systems. Agreed. But only if open source programmers take it and improve it. There is no guarantee that people will work on it. Not everybody is a graphics driver programmer you know. AMD should make something of a survey to find out how many people are actually willing to work on their driver.

Well, the thing is that we already know that people are working on it. Red Hat has people hired exclusively to work on it. Then of course there is Marek, and other independent contributors. So there are outside non-AMD people working on it (as was already well explored earlier in this thread). So what is your point?

Yes clueless people. The kind of clueless people that use windows and don't care about linux but the linux community wants them to take on linux. That kind of people. The potential customers if you wish. They aren't sheep. Do you think Microsoft calls its customers sheep because they can't do kernel programming? And they don't care about open source. They first and foremost care if they can do in linux what they can do in windows equally easier or even easier. And right now, since they don't have the same performance with the radeon driver they will go with the proprietary ones. They may be sheep from your point of view, but I call them normal people for going with the performance. Again, after explaining open source they agree that it's a better development model, but they still choose performance and functionality first. That is why AMD should focus on making sure that fglrx works. And the X.org guys can help the AMD guys by not changing the interface so much so that people could use the end of life driver version indefinitely(talking about the 2000 3000 and 4000 lines that no longer work with the latest X.org).

Again, work on the one does not negate work on the other. As for the sheep comment, I think it is a bit presumptuous to call crazycheese the Linux community (and trust me, there are plenty of Microsoft fan boys that can be just as inflammatory, insulting, or hard to understand). I also think it is a bit presumptuous for you to be the one here to describe people as "normal" or not. Is this about your little survey again?

As for X.org, I will admit that it is up for X.org to justify there decisions on those points and not who does not fully grasp the complexities of the situation, but the way I understand it your problem is the fact that the X.org server shipped with most distributions is one that can be considered to be stable branches of something that is under constant development. Well, if you do not like that, then do not use one of those distros - use one that offers long term support and upgrades like a Windows version would. Use something like Ubuntu LTS or CentOS or Debian Stable. That is what most of these binary blob drivers are targeting. Do that and you will still be able to use Catalyst with those cards for years. If the average Windows desktop was as much as a moving target as Fedora or non-LTS Ubuntu release they would hit the shame issues there with proprietary blobs.

I feel that the linux community says that they want better market share but aren't actually willing to do what is necessary to get that market share. And when they don't get it they call everybody sheep and narrow minded for not bending to their way of doing things. If the purpose is to get as much market share as possible we should focus on what people want. Not on what Stallman wants.

Well, that is the thing - should that really be the goal? To get more market share? I personally would much rather focus on building an operating system that works based on solid open foundations and free ideals. I do not really care if everyone uses it as long as it works and suits my use case. I am using your own criteria there BO$$. I will admit that for some people the goal is world domination, but I will take a working free system any day over a popular one that does not suit me needs. If we get more users that is perfectly fine, but it is not something I am personally striving for. I am just striving to make my system work even better. And for me it works best with free software drivers.